Pardo v. Carhart

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pardo v. Carhart

546 So. 2d 1142, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1754, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4140, 1989 WL 81659

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1989

DocketNo. 88-1350

StatusPublished

This text of 546 So. 2d 1142 (Pardo v. Carhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pardo v. Carhart, 546 So. 2d 1142, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1754, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4140, 1989 WL 81659 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Carletto Pardo from a final summary judgment entered in a negligence action brought against the defendant Edward Carhart for a battery inflicted by the defendant’s minor son. We affirm based on a holding that the record establishes without material dispute that the defendant’s minor child did not have a habit of engaging in the particular act or course of conduct which led to the plaintiff’s injury, and, consequently, the defendant is not liable for the child’s battery. The accident sued upon involved a fist fight in which the defendant’s child struck the plaintiff in the face, breaking the plaintiff’s nose, and inflicting cuts to the area surrounding the plaintiff’s eye. The record demonstrates that the child had not engaged in any prior fist fights; moreover, the eight-year-old prior incident in which the child threw a swim mask striking a child’s face and the recent, but relatively minor, shoving incident in the school bus would not have put the defendant on notice that his child might injure someone in a fist fight. We have not overlooked the fist fight incident in which the defendant’s child broke another child’s nose, but this incident occurred subsequent to the incident sued upon, and, accordingly, has no relevance to the instant case. Snow v. Nelson, 475 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1985); Gissen v. Goodwill, 80 So.2d 701 (Fla.1955).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff Carletto Pardo from a final summary judgment entered in a negligence action brought against the defendant Edward Carhart for a battery inflicted by the defendant’s minor son. We affirm based on a holding that the record establishes without material dispute that the defendant’s minor child did not have a habit of engaging in the particular act or course of conduct which led to the plaintiff’s injury, and, consequently, the defendant is not liable for the child’s battery. The accident sued upon involved a fist fight in which the defendant’s child struck the plaintiff in the face, breaking the plaintiff’s nose, and inflicting cuts to the area surrounding the plaintiff’s eye. The record demonstrates that the child had not engaged in any prior fist fights; moreover, the eight-year-old prior incident in which the child threw a swim mask striking a child’s face and the recent, but relatively minor, shoving incident in the school bus would not have put the defendant on notice that his child might injure someone in a fist fight. We have not overlooked the fist fight incident in which the defendant’s child broke another child’s nose, but this incident occurred subsequent to the incident sued upon, and, accordingly, has no relevance to the instant case. Snow v. Nelson, 475 So.2d 225 (Fla. 1985); Gissen v. Goodwill, 80 So.2d 701 (Fla.1955).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 So. 2d 1142, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1754, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 4140, 1989 WL 81659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pardo-v-carhart-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack